Throughout history, inventors have made numerous attempts to solve the perplexing problem of insect control. From inauspicious beginnings with "fly paper" and "fly swatters" , insect control technology has gradually improved and in recent years a high level of sophistication has been achieved in the art.
A typical example utilizes ultraviolet lamps to attract insects within an enclosure. Once inside, the insects contact high voltage wires and are immobilized thereon. Although extremely effective, these high voltage devices are inappropriate for many home applications. The ultraviolet lamps create an artificial light which lacks illumination value for a home patio or entranceway. The high voltage wires are dangerous for children and pets, so the devices must be placed a great distance above the ground or in out of the way areas. Most of the designs to date have also been rather unattractive and undesirable for home decor.
Other insect control devices apply vacuum controlled suction to an enclosed space to create a high velocity airflow. Insects are drawn into the draft and carried to a disposal area. The Thybault invention (U.S. Pat. No. 3,750,727, issued August 1973) simply adapted an insect gathering attachment to a common household vacuum cleaner. The Smith device (U.S. Pat. No. 4,141,174, issued February 1979) uses suction to entrap agricultural insects in an enclosure for field population sampling. My own fire ant eradicator (U.S. Pat. No. 4,683,673, issued August 1987) is yet another example of a mobile suction controlled insect eradication device. Stationary vacuum eradication devices such as the Knox invention (U.S. Pat. No. 2,569,722, issued December 1951) have also appeared in prior art references. In Knox, insects entering a showcase are drawn into a complex suction system and subsequently captured in a removable disposal bag.
The aforementioned vacuum controlled devices are impractical for insect control in a residential or outdoor recreational environment. No insect attraction means are incorporated into these devices, so the insect control area is extremely limited. The prior art devices are also relatively complex, requiring maintenance beyond the capabilities of the typical homeowner. The large and unsightly designs are inappropriate for home decor or recreational use. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the costs of these devices are prohibitive for the homeowner.